>>You did not respond to much of what Tracy stated. Only what you were comfortable with. I'm sure the difference in language accounts for some of you perceived misconceptions, but at least try to respond to the entire point.
>
>Jay, that's a good point!
>
>At the time that the US attacked Iraq, I had several discussions in forums. Some of the participants were pro-war (like me), others anti-war. Most of the anti-war persons were Dutch muslims, sons of immigrants (I assume) from countries like Turkey and Maroc. It took a while before I got aware of the pattern you're referring to. It led to endless discussions, each time I essentially only restated my arguments, eventually trying other wordings. And each time they reacted on only one or two of my arguments, almost seldom showing agreement, instead, almost always showing strong disagreement. Did I say 'one or two of my arguments'? Well, actually they most of the times reacted to only one or two parts of less crucial sentences.
>
>I'm not sure what causes this 'selective reaction pattern'. Your suggestion, that they tend to react only to things they feel confortable with, sounds plausible.

Good observation. I think this behavior is fairly common with anyone who is not well-informed or by design for the sake of the debate in order to feel that they are arguing successfully. You see it in politics often and even here in the not-so-distant-past "technical" discussions of JVP and Walter. It's easy to pick the one or two things you are comfortable with and argue - especially if you know they make your point - than address the entire argument.